The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy.

xv. CHAPITER.

THE iiij^e. principal conclusioun of this present iij^e. partie is this: Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament allowith the iij^e. ofte seid principal gouernaunce, that is to seie, preestis forto haue vnmouable posses|siouns

and that in greete plente. That this conclu|sioun is trewe, y proue thus: What euer deede eny Apostle or his writing allowith to be in a preestis moral conuersacioun, thilk same deede is not aȝens resoun to be in the same preestis moral conuersacioun; for ellis the Apostle and his writing schulde reule aȝens resoun, which is not to be grauntid. But so it is, that this deede, a preest and ech other Cristen man forto frely receyue, take, and vce alle maners of metis and alle maners of drinkis into his sufficience with thankingis to God Holi Writt weel allowith, as it is open i^e. Thim. iiij^e. capitulum., and of the ouer plus make doole to othere hauying therto nede, as it is writun [Luk xj^e. capitulum.]: The ouer plus ȝeue ȝe into almes.

Also this deede, a preest forto freli take and chese of alle maidens to him a wijf, so that he wedde not of the newe eftsoone, if his first wijf die him lyuyng, and forto bigete children, and forto haue meyne and holde house, and forto nurische and bringe up hise children, and forto reule his wijf, meyne, and children, and forto purveie for hem was allowid of Poul, and bi lijk skile of the othere Apostlis, as is open of Poul bi what is writun i^e. Cor. vij^e. capitulum. in the bigynnyng, where he spekith generali to alle Cristen persoones of Corinthi, and therfore to preestis as to other, i^e. Thim. iij^e. capitulum. and Tite i^e. capitulum., in the vnderstonding which ther|upon was had in Poulis daies and fro Poulis daies into this dai thoruȝ al Grece, as the deede proueth weel; and also in the vndirstonding which the West Chirche hadde and took upon the same wordis fro the daies of Petir and Poul into the daies of Austyn, as the deedis of preestis in the West Chirche into the

daies of Austyn beren mensioun, with The threfold stori speking of the counseil of Nice, and with it that the seid Austin spekith of preestis weddid in hise daies; thouȝ it be trewe with al this that Poul, i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum., counseilid to Thimothe, that he schulde kepe him silf chaast.

Also this deede, a preest forto haue in possessioun movable godis how miche euer he mai honestli and riȝtli come to, (so that he be not gleymed with ouer myche loue to it,) and forto therof take ynouȝ, and of the ouer plus make disposicioun into almes is allowid bi Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament. Forwhi how ellis schulde Bischop Thimothie haue performed what Poul wolde him to performe i^e. Thim. v^e. capitulum., that Thimothie schulde worschipe, (that is to seie, finde and nurische,) tho wommen of lx^ti. winter age, whiche aftir hir husbondis deethis wolden for deuocioun lyue chaast? And sithen Poul and his felawschip and disciplis being conuersaunt with him lyueden bi the ȝiftis and sondis, which dyuerse chirchis ȝauen and senden to him where that he were, as he witnessith him silf in hise epistlis, except that in summe cuntrees (as in Achaia) he forbare forto so receyue, that he wolde therbi confounde tho prechers, whiche weren glad forto into coueitouse maner receiue;—how ellis miȝte this be vsid of dyuerse chirchis and comountees forto sende to Poul, and that Poul schulde receyue the sondis of hem, but if it hadde be so ful ofte that tho chirchis and comountees senden ful ofte, and Poul

receyued bi her sondis ful ofte more than was neces|sarie to him and to hise felaschip and hise disciplis, so that thei hadden ful ofte so miche of movable godis, that thei hadden cause forto ther with do almes to poor and nedy persoones? Wherfore alle these iij. kindis of deedis ben allowid of Holi Scripture, ȝhe, and ben resonable and not aȝens resoun to be in preestis moral gouernaunce.

And thanne ferther thus: Al the cause assignable whi it schulde be aȝens Scripture or aȝens resoun a preest forto haue eny vnmovable godis, if it were aȝens Scripture or resoun, is this: That bi the hauyng of thilk godis he schulde be maad ouer thouȝtful and ouer carkful and ouermyche louyng toward hem, and ther bi he schulde be mad ouer myche necligent forto attende to goostli thingis, and forto loue God and goostli thingis. And noon other cause is therfore assignable saue this. But so it is, that this cause, (that is to seie, this seid thouȝt, this seid cark, and caring, and attendaunce,) is miche more in a man for that that he hath wijf and children and household needis ȝeerli and daili to be costioseli founde, and for that he hath not but mouable godis oonli without the suerte of contynuaunce, (which suerte myȝte be had bi vnmouable godis, if thei weren had,) than thilk cark is in a man which hath vnmouable godis in so greet plente, that he mai avorthi to haue discrete officers at fulle vndir him, and that he mai avorthi forto lese ynouȝ and haue ynouȝ, rather than for to be ouer bisi and ouer thouȝtful forto kepe and saue al, and therwith is chaast, and lackith wijf and children, and al the gleyme, loue, and delectacions whiche violentli comen anentis his wijf and hise children. Wherfore if it be with the alleggid Scripture or resoun, that a

preest mai haue a wijf, children, and household with|out vnmouable possessioun, miche rather it is with the same now alleggid Scripture and resoun, that a preest mai haue vnmovable possessiouns in greet plente (and rather in greet plente than in scant suf|ficience), with chastite, and so withoute wijf and children, and folewingli withoute the greet cark falling to him for hem.

Also this present iiij^e. conclusion mai be proued bi a processe of iij. supposiciouns, and of an argument formed vpon hem toward the eende of the first parti in this present book; and for as miche as it is not fer fro this present place, therfore y wole not thilk processe here aȝen of the newe reherce.

The v^e. principal conclusioun in this iij^e. principal parti is this: Doom of cleerli disposid resoun in kinde allowith and approueth the iij^e. principal gouernaunce sett in the bigynnyng of this present iij^e. partie. That this conclusioun is trewe mai be proued bi alle tho same argumentis bi which the next iiij^e. principal conclusioun is proued. For thouȝ tho argumentis goon upon the witnessing of Holi Scripture, ȝit in al it Holi Scripture dooth not ellis than witnesse what doom of resoun iugith in allowing and approuyng; and therfore alle tho same seid argumentis seruen lijk weel for proof of the iiij^e. conclusioun and for proof of the v^e. conclusioun.

The vj^e. conclusioun is this: The seid iij^e. princi|pal gouernaunce is leeful in proprist maner of leeful|nes. That this conclusioun is trewe, y proue thus: Ech gouernaunce, which Holi Scripture or doom of cleer reson allowith and approueth, is leeful in proprist maner of leefulnes. But so it is, that Holi Scripture and also doom of cleer resoun allowen and approuen

the iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce. Wherfore folewith needis, that the seid iij^e. principal gouernaunce is in proprist maner leeful.

The vij^e. conclusioun is this: The iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce is a gouernannce of Goddis lawe. This conclusioun schal be proued thus: Ech gouernance, which is leeful and allowid and approued bi Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament and bi doom of cleer resoun, is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament, as it is vndoutabili proued in manye placis of my writingis, namelich in The iust apprising of Holi Scripture. But so it is, that the iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce is leeful bi the next bifore going iij^e. principal conclusioun, and he is al|lowid and approued by Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament and bi doom of cleer resoun, as prouen weel the next bifore going iiij^e. and v^e. principal con|clusiouns. Wherfore thilk iij^e. gouernaunce is a gouer|naunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament.

The viij^e. principal conclusioun is this: It is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi deede to othere men the iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce. That this con|clusioun is trewe, y proue thus: It is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi his deede to othere men a deede and a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament. But so it is, that the iij^e. seid prin|cipal gouernaunce is a gouernaunce of Goddis lawe and of the Newe Testament, as proueth weel the next bifore going vj^e. principal conclusioun. Wherfore it is not synne a man forto ensaumple bi his deede to othere men the iij^e. seid principal gouernaunce.

Notes

• allowith and approueth, MS. (first hand).
• A space left in the MS. for the reference. Wiclif's (later) version of Luke xi. 41, substantially agrees: Netheles that that is ouer plus ȝyue ȝe almes.
• This and the three preceding words are added in a later hand.
• The truth of this assertion ap|pears very evidently from a contem|porary of Augustine: "Quasi non hodie quoque plurimi sacerdotes habeant matrimonia." S. Hieron. adv. Jovin. lib. i. c. 23. (tom. ii. p. 273. Ed. Vall.)
• See Hist. Tripart. lib. ii. c. xiv. for an account of the proceedings of Paphnutius in that council.
• See Cod. Eccl. Afric. can. xxv., where Augustine mentions the "uxores" of bishops, priests, and deacons. It is hard to say what particular passage Pecock may have referred to.
• approued and allowid, MS. (first hand).
• a wijf, MS. (first hand).
• See Part I. c. xix.
• seid is added in the margin by a later hand.
• to othere men is added by a later hand in the margin, after which a different hand (exceedingly similar to that of the original scribe, if not identical with it,) has written a deede; the whole being marked with a red line, probably by the same hand that illuminated the MS. This tends to show that the cor|rections of the MS. are (in part at least) scarcely later than the original text.